Thursday, August 30, 2012

AR/Veganism is afflicted with a cancer, which I call [Pseudo-AR/Vegan Nazism]. Note the prefix "pseudo" since I am not referring to true AR and true Veganism. Though I seldom resort to hyperbole, this label in my opinion is more than fully justified.

Some chide me for going too far with the term "Nazism", even a long time friend calls it "ridiculous", but I think it does not go far enough. There is currently no term for an ideology which goes BEYOND "Nazism" that I know of, or I would have used it. After all, the Nazis sought to exterminate one "race" of humans, whereas this ideology seeks to eradicate thousands of SPECIES, if not millions, of those creatures that eat meat and "kill for a living", namely the natural predators, anything from orcas, dolphins, tigers, wolves, eagle, falcons...

It goes something like this: Natural predators:

1. should be forced to abandon their evil ways - first by behaviour modification, and failing that,

2. by genetic modification, and failing this, then

3. they should be eradicated, and their evil species terminated. Oh, but of course this should be accomplished by humane means, that is, not by killing them, but by sterilization.

One of their starting points is to "reduce suffering", but considering that they cannot think around the first corner, these Pseudo-AR/Vegan Nazis ignore the practical ramifications that given the absence of the natural predators, members of the herbivorous species will proliferate out of control, destroy their own environment, and themselves face starvation and massive die off. They have not thought far enough to take into account the enormous suffering that mass starvation would entail.

This same ideology, also holds that species that have been existing and evolving on this planet for millions of year "HAVE NO INTRINSIC VALUE", and can be wipe off the face of the Earth at will, by our own species of course, as long as humane means are employed, to actualize their pseudo-compassion.

Since they cannot relate on the species level, let's put this in terms a single animal so that hopefully even they can understand. Let's take a bottlenose dolphin, whose diet consists entirely of animals, mostly fish. So, these Pseoudo-AR/Vegan Nazis (call them PAN, implying ideological pandemic) would want to do to this dolphin the following:
1. to capture her and imprison her, then
2. try to force behaviour modification on her - "Eat only seaweed, or else!" Failing this, they would
3. try to genetically modify her so that her progeny will eat seaweed only. And failing this, they would
4. sterilize her so that she can have no progeny at all.

Thus the extinction of the Bottlenose dolphin species. No loss to these PANs of course, since it is just a species without intricsic value. In doing so, they think that they have done the fish in the ocean a big favour, since our almighty species has already wiped the fish-eating dolphins out of existence.

The truly laughable thing about this ideology is the gross ignorance of its creators, all of the humans species of course. They don't realize that nearly ALL marine organisms are predators, where marine mammals and big fish eat medium fish, medium fish eat small fish, small fish eat shrimps, and shrimps eat worms. So, their end gaol would be to EXTERMINATE ALL LIFE IN THE OCEAN except sea weed and phytoplankton.

Back to their ludicrous premise of genetically engineering dolphin to stop eating fish, what they have in mind, if "mind" is the right word, is to create GMO dolphins that do not eat fish, and, failing in this experiment, destroy the dolphins. Even if they successfully deny that they are not playing God, they cannot deny that they are playing Monsanto, in the very least.

What the WW2 Nazis committed was a Crime Against Humanity. What these Pseudo-AR/Vegan Nazis aim to commit is the worst CRIME AGAINST NATURE bar none, and, yes the lesser Crime against Humanity too, since were they to succeed, our future generations would be deprived to Mother Nature herself.

If AR and Veganism do not disavow such an ideology outright, they would be eaten from the inside out by this ideological cancer, and be brought down in the eyes of the world, this time as true eco-terrorists.

And if such ideologues ever gain control of the world, we can kiss Life on Earth goodbye.

To see the original wordings of these ideologues, please see my posts (with the tiger pic) in [Animal Rights Zone].

Sunday, August 26, 2012

While it is extremely regrettable that a hiker was killed by a Grizzly bear in Alaska's Denali National Park, it is doubly tragic that the bear was subsequently killed by the rangers as a matter of course.

The hiker's camera contains 8 minutes' worth of pictures of the Grizzly doing nothing but grazing, showing no sign of aggression. However, they also show that the hiker was only 50 yards = 150' from the bear, when park policy stipulates the minimum distance to be 1/4 mile = 440 yards = 1320'.

I've worked many times in Grizzly bear country in the British Columbia interior, with bear encounter stories to tell. I urge all hiking in Grizzly bear habitat to observe the following rules of the wild:

1. Never take non-aggression of a bear for granted.

2. Make a lot of noise to warn bears in the area of your presence; and they will usually avoid you.

5. Never run from a bear; a human can never outrun a bear, but running will trigger their pursuit instinct. A joke has it that if you do run, you'd don't have to outrun the bear, just the slowest runner. :)

6. If the bear exhibits the warning mode, do not turn your back on the bear, but slowing back away. When mock-charged, stand your ground, but wave your arms or open an umbrella, etc., to make yourself look as big as possible. Climb a tree if the charger is a Grizzly, and if there is a tree around. When attacked by a bear, and if you have a can of bear spray, hold your fire until the bear reaches spraying distance; you have only one chance to do it right. If you have no spray, and if the attacker is a Black bear, fight back with all your might; if it is a Grizzle bear, and if there is no tree to climb, play dead - fetal position, with arms around your head, and, just in case, kiss your ass good-bye.

Bear in mind (not a pun), if your behaviour triggers a bear attack, and you get hurt, it'd be a death sentence for the bear.

Anthony Marr

SAN DIEGO HIKER KILLED BY GRIZZLY BEAR AS HE SNAPPED PHOTOS AT ALASKA'S DENALI NATIONAL PARK
Richard White’s mauling was first in park’s 95-year history. Grizzly bear was later tracked and killed.

New York Daily News
by Anthony Bartkewicz
Sunday, August 26, 2012

A hiker was killed by a grizzly bear at Alaska’s Denali National Park in the first known fatal mauling in the park’s history.

The victim was 49-year-old Richard White of San Diego, according to the Anchorage Daily News.

Photos recovered from his camera showed that he lingered after encountering the bear near the Toklat River and took several pictures instead of backing away.

Three hikers found bloody clothes and an abandoned backpack near the river Friday afternoon, park representatives said.

They notified park rangers, who launched an air search for the scene and found one grizzly at the site where White was mauled.

On Saturday, rangers found that a bear had dragged his remains to a more secluded brushy area. Later in the day, they shot a grizzly believed to be the one that killed White.

White, like all backpackers at Denali, was required to undergo the park’s “Bear Aware” training before getting a permit to hike through the backcountry.

Park spokeswoman Maureen McLaughlin told the Anchorage Daily News that thanks to the mandatory training, “it's not common that we even have injuries related to bears.”

White’s death was the first death by mauling in Denali’s 95-year history.

The backcountry area where he was killed was closed to hikers and campers until further notice, officials said.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

2. They both saw that the private banking system of their times would eventually bankrupt the country they have vowed to protect.

3. They both refused to submit to its power and did something about it.

4. They were both assassinated.

Let me start from the present. Today, the U.S. national debt, owed to the "Federal Reserve", which represents the private banking system beyond the bounds of the U.S. government, towers over $15 trillion, or >$15,000 billion, or >$15,000,000 million. The interest alone cost the U.S. almost $500 billion in 2011, or $500,000 million, or $1,700 per US citizen.

Look forward but a few years, and the meaningless "debt ceiling" will have been elevated yet once again, and the national debt will have burgeoned to $30 trillion, and the interest will have risen to $1 trillion for that year, or $1,000 billion, or $1,000,000 million, or $3,000 per American.

The irrepayable debt notwithstanding, the crushing interest-load itself will drive America into either or both of two appalling outcomes: hyperinflation which will reduce the dollar-value to next to nothing, and/or default on the debt and declare national bankruptcy.

Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president, foresaw this from way back in the 1860s, thus saying, “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic destroyed.”

His action was to bypass the interest-charging external banks and created 450-million-dollars'-worth in "Greenbacks" to fund his war effort, and charged his country not a cent of interest. He believed that only by creating for itself the power to grant interest-free loans can the nation have long-term prosperity. “... (we) gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had – their own money to pay their own debts...," he said.

Subsequent calculations have concluded upon $4 billion in interest had the loan been obtained from external sources.

Shortly afterwards, he was assassinated, and the "Greenbacks", like the EV-1 electric car, were recalled and destroyed.

A century later, the 35th president John F. Kennedy saw the same and did the same thing. On June 4, 1963, he issued over $4 billion of the government's own interest-free money, undermining the power of the private banks of the "Federal Reserve", rendering them impotent and infuriated. On November 22 same year, he was assassinated.

On November 23, all the government notes, which Kennedy had issued, were called out of circulation.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

"The Chinese" are broadly vilified for being "cruel, evil and subhuman" in the AR movement, the action items being "Fxck the Chinese" and "Bomb China", by those who are ignorant about Chinese geography, history and culture (this I put largely to the failure of the educational systems in most non-Chinese countries). Just about all they know about China and "the Chinese" are based on the pictures about cat and dog eating that have gone viral on the internet. And so they think that ALL Chinese eat cats and dogs and do nothing else - stereotyping in the extreme.

To put things in perspective:

1. The 1400 million Chinese in the world eat a total of 14 million dogs and 4 million cat, whereas, for example, the 300 million Americans eat 35 million cows, 120 million pigs and over 10 billion (10,000 million) chickens. So unless the vilifiers think that cows and pigs and chickens are somehow inferior to cats and dogs, they should take a good look at their own countries. And those who do think that cat and dogs are superior to cows, pigs and chickens, they are just cat-dog lovers, not true ARAs.

2. Europe and China are similar in size (Europe 10,180,000 km² and China 9,596,961 km²), but the Chinese are ethnically more diverse than the Europeans (see map). Just as we should not vilify all Europeans for the Spanish bullfight or the French foie gras, neither should we vilify all Chinese for the cat/dog eating of a small minority in a few provinces (out of 33). Just how small a minority of the Chinese eat cats and dogs? Let's say that each dog eater eats 10 dogs every year, the 14 million dogs eaten make 1.4 million dog eaters, which, out of the 1400 million Chinese, make only 0.1% of all Chinese (though of course it is still 0.1% too many).

3. Those familiar with American history should know that Meriwether Lewis of the Lewis and Clark expedition loved dog meat (provided by some Indian tribes en route). So are we to vilify all Americans for eating dogs?

4. Those religions espousing vegetarianism and veganism based on compassion for animals are in the East (including Chinese Buddhism and Taoism), not in the West. An exception is the Church of Latter Day Saints, but their vegetarianism is based on personal health, not animal rights.

Those who can see what goes on in a back alley in another country on the other side of the world but are oblivious to what goes on in their own backyard are afflicted with CULTURAL FAR-SIGHTEDNESS, whereas those who are arrogant due to their own ignorance have a bad case of IGNORROGANCE.

Friday, August 17, 2012

As you may already be aware, there is a movement sweeping the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island of British Columbia, largely instigated and driven by the Vancouver Animal Defence League (VADL), towards banning the shark fin trade on a city-by-city basis.

So far, in the United States, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii and Illinois have banned shark fins state-wide. In Canada, at least 7 cities in Ontario, including Toronto, Brantford, Mississauga, Pickering, New Market, Oakville and London, have instituted bans, and here in British Columbia, Port Moody, Coquitlam, North Vancouver, and Nanaimo have all made their own announcements, while Vancouver, Richmond and Burnaby are working towards a regional ban, with Surrey and Langley having invited the VADL delegation to present at their council meetings in September.

We are writing to ask the councils of all municipalities in British Columbia not yet on board to join this movement, first to ban shark fins in your own community as a remedial or preventative measure, and further to vote during the upcoming Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) conference in Victoria towards a province-wide ban - towards protecting the marine ecosystems for our children.

Following are the main reasons for banning the trade in shark fins:

1. Shark-finning is exceedingly cruel. Sharks caught mostly with long lines are hauled into boats, have their fins cut off and the rest of their still-alive bodies cast back into the ocean. This is tantamount to some aliens abducting you, cutting off all four limbs and dumping you back on to the road. This is done due to the fact that while shark meat fetches less than $2 per kg, shark fins fetch up to $2000 per kg.

2. Each year, over 100 million sharks (by latest estimate) are finned around the world. Practically every country with a coastline does it, the "Big 5" being Costa Rica, Spain, United Arab Emirates, Singapore and Indonesia (Taiwan has recently banned shark-finning).

3. Of the 450 shark species, one-third are endangered. Since shark-finning is indiscriminate, and almost no records are kept, there is no way of telling which fin in Chinatown belongs to what species short of a fin-by-fin DNA analysis. Who would pay for this? The Pew Environmental Group in the United States published a report in early August, 2012, on their country-wide DNA survey of random shark fin samples from 14 cities, which found that 81% of them were from endangered or threatened species. What more proof do we need?

4. Sharks are extremely slow reproducing. Whereas most fish spawn thousands of eggs every years, shark give birth to only 2-4 pups every 2-4 years. Most do not reach sexual maturity until 10-20 years old. There is no way they can sustain the onslaught and be able to recover, making this matter a state of emergency.

5. Sharks are apex predators, which prey on medium sized fish, but not small fish upon which the medium sized fish prey. If sharks are wiped out, the medium sized fish would proliferate and over-prey on the small fish, and the entire oceanic ecosystem could collapse. The opposition saying that suppressing shark populations would benefit human fisheries simply does not understand this fact.

6. Shark fins are of little nutritional value, but due to their high cost are served in large banquets as a status symbol for the hosts.

7. A recent poll conducted in San Francisco showed that 76% of San Franciscans and 70% of Chinese San Franciscans are in support of the California ban.

8. International law (CITES & UN) and Canadian federal law (WAPPRIITA) forbid trade on products containing endangered species parts, and Canada's own Fisheries Act forbids shark-finning in Canadian waters, which makes any city still allowing the shark fin trade in violation of all these laws.

There are those who advocate the soft-peddling "one bowl at a time" voluntary withdrawal approach. This might produce some effect given a decade or two, or three. Meanwhile, over 100 million sharks of various species are slaughtered every year, and one or two or three or four endangered shark species may have gone extinct. The sharks have simply run out of time. The only way to save them, and the health of the oceans, is by means of an outright shark fin ban, immediately or sooner.

In closing, again, please consider banning shark fins in your own municipality as a remedial or preventative measure, and further, please vote in favour of a province-wide ban at the September UBCM conference in Victoria. Thank you!

Saturday, August 11, 2012

"If you go into the mountains often enough, you would inevitably encounter a tiger." - ancient Chinese proverb.

"Everything is meant to be." - an oft-heard western saying.

Let me start this story with yesterday. Congrats to Shannon for finally finding a lovely suite in a house surrounded by trees, with a sea view and even a fireplace! We met the nice landlady who used to be a can-can dancer way back when, before she was crippled by a drunk driver. This brought back an old memory of mine, one with a moral, to me anyway, which I'd like to share with you - both the memory and the moral.

In my life I've had quite a few situations in which I escaped with my life unscathed, what with my rather dangerous pursuits including car racing, equestrian sports (show jumping mostly), solo camping in E. Africa, working entire summers in Grizzly country often above the tree line, i.e. with no trees to climb to escape a charging Grizzly, not to mention riding race-worthy sportbikes like my "Black Lightning" which carries the warning, "There are only two kinds of motorcyclists - those who have crashed and those who will crash," to the latter kind I still belong, knock on wood. I have fallen off horses more than once, visited by lions in the middle of the night, had many bear encounters in line of duty, conducted dangerous under-cover operations in both India and Japan, chased on the highway by hunters, and had three facial bones fractured, including a buckled eyes socket, by one of them. I could have been killed, at least had my neck broken, many a time. But my most miraculous escaped-with-my-life event (not the one shown in the pic, but just as amazing) occurred when I was driving a plain old truck at no more than 30 mph.

It was the summer of 1969, when I was a university senior, aged 23, working as a crew chief in geophysical survey in the mountainous British Columbian interior. On this day, I was driving a crew cab with my 3-man crew on a winding one-lane road atop a 200' cliff above Ootsa Lake to my left. I happened to be following a van which was crawling along at the speed limit. It was raining and the road was slick, so I stayed at a respectful distance behind it. Suddenly, around a tight right-hand curve, without signalling or gradual slowing, the van came to a near stop to enter a driveway. I braked to avoid rear-ending it, but in doing so, the tires lost traction and the truck began spinning clockwise, and skidded straight for the cliff.

I then knew what some famous last words would have been. One guy screamed, "NOOOO!" Another shouted, "OH MY GOD!" And the third uttered a notorious four-letter word, and not in a whisper either. As for me, I was too busy trying to correct the situation to say anything. But it was hopeless. The truck skidded off the road, heading straight for free-fall, to be followed a few seconds latter with a bone shattering crash.

But then, either "God" planted a very fast growing tree right below the edge of the cliff, or there was one there all along, one with a trunk diameter no bigger than two feet. The truck went over the cliff and slammed against it, coming to an abrupt halt, balanced precariously with its left side resting on the leaning trunk of the tree at a 45 degree angle to the vertical.

I looked out - down - the driver-side window, and all I could see were the lake-side rocks the equivalent of 20-storeys below. The boys, mostly freshmen, aged 18 or 19, were freaking out, trying to scramble over each other to get out of the truck which was shifting with every move. I calmed myself instantly, and told them to stay still, then directed them, one at a time, to make a gingerly exit, while trying to keep the centre of gravity of the truck in line with the tree trunk. I exited last through the passenger door, and scrambled the five feet or so back up on to the road.

After my heart rate had slowed somewhat, I looked along the length of the cliff, and there was not a tree in sight except the one against which the truck was still resting.

I was too shaken up to be philosophical at that point, but some time in the course of that day, I told myself that I survived this incident for a reason, that I was meant for some kind of destiny - which still did not reveal itself for yet another decade.

Then, in 1979, I went solo camping in East Africa for two months, and began conceiving the concept of Integrative Transcendence, the central tenet of what I later named the Omniscientific Cosmology which still later I wrote into my look titled "OMNI-SCIENCE and the Human Destiny", which I published in 2003. By then, I had been a full time ARA for 8 years.

Friday, August 10, 2012

The US Constitution guarantees a number of Basic Rights:
In the Bill of Rights -
Right to choose your own religion
Right to peaceful assembly
Right to speak your mind
Right for the media to cover any piece they want
Right to petition against the government or more specifically, laws
Right to a trial by jury
Right to not quarter soldiers
Right to bear arms

Some of these rights are universal and eternal, such as the freedom of speech, while others are obsolete, or should be, such as the right to bear arms, which made sense only during the War of Independence when militias were a needed support force against Britain.

This piece is about the Right to Petition: "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people to... petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It sounds good, and it served the people well for the greater part of a century, but back when it was drafted and passed, there were no such things as gigantic corporations and mercenary lobbying firms. Now, it contains a loophole big enough to sail a super-tanker through, resulting from which the US is now run by "the best government money can buy".

Indeed, is the US of A even run by its own government? Ask anyone who the world's most powerful person is, and most would say the American president. But the president himself can tell you that he is not even the most powerful person in his own country. If a superlative is to be used, he is no more than being the biggest puppet in the land, the lesser puppets numbering 535.

And who are the puppet master(s)? Corporations and their lobbyists.

In the national capital, there are 435 Members of the House and 100 Senators, totalling 535 Members of Congress. And the number of lobbyists? Over 14,000, each and every one of whom holding a number of strings connected to the hands and feet of politicians. In turn, these lobbyists are the strings in the hands of their own corporate masters.

On the surface, lobbyists are subservient to the high-brow politicians, and often have to "kiss their asses", but in essence, it is the reverse. It is specific corporations, via the lobbyists, that put specific politicians in power, and it is the politicians that have to do the bidding of the corporations.

Not only that. The politicians have to repay the corporations for their favors - 100-fold, literally.

We have all heard of government bailouts of corporations in the aftermath of the 2008 financial meltdown. Is this for the good of the country? NO. It is for the good of the corporation. It is a huge pay back for previous big favors. For example, in 2008 Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae spent $9.6 million in lobbying, and received over $200 billion in US taxpayers money in its 2009 bailout.

The pre-crash figure of corporate lobbying amounted to some $6.7 billion, including $2.2 million from AIG, $8.4M from General Motors, $2.8 from Goldman-Sachs, >$3.3M from Kraft, $26M from MFRS Trade Assoc., >$6.7M from Microsoft, >$8.6M from Monsanto, $22M from PFIZER, $6M from Qualcom Inc., and >$3.5M from Sallie Mae, while the bailout of corporations totalled some $700 billion.

Other than the bailouts, there are also the payoffs. For example, in 2009, Exxon spent $25M in lobbying and $15M in 2011, but receives $30 Billion in tax breaks in 2010, an amount that could have been, or should have been, allocated to green technology R&D.

Such is the present-day state of the "Right to Petition", the front line petitioners being the 14,000 registered lobbyists and untold number of unregistered lobbyists, NOT the average Joe on the street.

So where do these thousands of lobbyists come from if not from the grassroots? There are three main sources:

1. Membership base, e.g. the National Rifle Association (NRA, 4.5 million members) which of course lobbies on gun and hunting issues, and the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP, 40 million members) which focuses on insurance and seniors issues.

2. Financial base, from the business and professional sectors including medicine, realty, law, and mostly large businesses.

3. Former-government personnel, including ex-congressmen, ex-judges, etc., whose previous salaries were in the $300,000 range, and whose income as leading lobbyists could be in excess of $1 million. They do not, as often thought, "go back to the farm" or "hang up the shingle again" after their public service, but instead use the tricks learned while in office to rake in the major bucks, which could have been in their plans all along.

For sure, there are grassroots-based "lobbyists" who attempt to petition the government for their own non-profit causes, but without the backing of large groups and huge corporations, their voices, from the wilderness, will be lost in the wilderness. How does, say, the anti-hunting movement, with a great heart and soaring spirit, but no money, gain the attention, much less commitment, of congressmen, who were put in power by the massive financial campaigning contributions from the NRA and the well funded hunting lobby in the first place? How dare these congressmen defy the hunting lobby and lose NRA support for their re-election? And how can small mom-and-pops hold the balance against the likes of Walmart?

Indeed, the record shows that incumbents have not only the inside track but an insuperable advantage over up-start challengers in any election, considering the quid pro quo that has been exchanged and accumulated between them and their financial supporters and corporate puppet-masters since the previous election(s). A "new kid on the block" simply cannot raise the kind of funds commanded by the old guard, because the relationship between politician and lobbyist are cultivated over time and many luncheons and meetings, while his idealism simply proves a non-factor against their corrupted rivals' megabuck advertising and propaganda. It is estimated that the incumbents so often win election-after-election that those who eventually die in office number about the same as those who are eventually voted out of office. And the latter, as mentioned above, often become lobbyists to install replacements in office to perpetuate their anti-social agendas.

And what kind of anti-social work do they do? The pro-tobacco politicians are a prime example, many of whom do not even themselves smoke for fear of contracting cancer. But they have no qualms promoting the coffin-nail, fully aware that tobacco causes almost 300,000 agonizing deaths among Americans every year, and some 80 million medical cases that raise health insurance and medicaid costs sky high. In doing so, they further reap financial support from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Let me here offer a portrait of the life of a congressman. The first thing to note is that as soon as he is elected into office, and I use the word "elected" loosely since the office is practically bought, he would have to at once begin planning for and promote his re-election, meaning, to beginning raking in campaign funding. This is not necessarily his personal choice. If he doesn't do it, the party would make him do it. And if he doesn't want to spend his time raising funds for himself, he would be made to raise funds for the party.

Congressmen are legislators, but the party frowns on too much legislation work. There exists the so-called Tuesday-Thursday Club, where they would fly in on Monday, legislate Tuesday through Thursday, then fly out on Friday to do campaigning work, i.e., fund-raising.

And fund-raising doesn't necessarily have to be from his own constituency either. There exists a well establish US map with dark green patches showing where the money is, which often lies outside of his home district. Statistics show that successful fund-raising congressmen often obtain 80+% of their campaign funds from out of district, and over 70% from out of state, with Washington DC being a major common denominator. How does this impact on his performance? Simply, inevitably, he cannot and will fail to fulfill his obligations to his own constituents.

Within a party, prominence is by and large not determined by legislative performance, but by fund-raising prowess. High-performance legislators with no affinity for the dollar-sign are often bypassed, and left to sink into obscurity.

It should be more than crystal clear by now that such a money-based, corporate directed and special-interest centred system, with complete disregard for social justice, environmental sustainability, and responsibility toward future generations, is corrupt to the core, and will crash and burn and drive itself into the ground. So, is there an alternative?

The answer is yes, maybe and no. A foremost candidate is public funding, which was on President Obama's 2008 campaign platform. Public funding could be in the form of a government allotted and dispensed set-amount for both parties, so that private, corporate and special interest funders are barred from political participation.

In fact, in 2007, a "landmark legislation" was passed 411 to 8 in Congress towards "cleaning up Washington". Unfortunately, it did not work for long, for soon, evil genius created a loophole big enough for all 14,000 lobbyists to walk through at once. Obama himself abandoned it in the 2008 election in the face of a multi-million-dollar temptation from the private corporate sector.

The general public, either through ignorance or apathy or both, plus the cynicism that "this is my hard-earned tax dollars and I'll be damned if it goes into campaign funding", by and large did not support it. Sadly, by June 2009, it was dead.

Finally, in 2010, the U$ supreme court voted 5 to 4 in favor of unlimited special interest campaign funding. Corruption became law.

To return to the beginning, "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people to... petition the government for a redress of grievances," still sounds fine and good, but only as a meaningless museum piece.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

This is to show that animal abuse is prevalent throughout the world, such that no country or culture be singled out for self-righteous and bigoted racist attacks, which currently runs rampant in the AR movement.

BOILING LOBSTERS AND CRABS ALIVE - the method used in the USA, UK, and most other Western countries. ("The Chinese" seldom eat lobsters, but when they do, they decapitate the lobsters first with a single cleaver-chop.)

Breaking news! (Nov. 18, 2011) - the USA has just re-instituted horse slaughtering on American soil. States like Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Georgia and Missouri are considering opening or re-opening horse-slaughter plants. 120,000-200,000 horses will be slaughtered in America per year.

.........This will either make your blood boil or make you salivate and crave for more, depending on whether you are a compassionate and conscientious person, or a psychopathic serial killer of sentient beings. If you are the former, please join the Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC); if the latter, please quit, then join the Global Anti-Hunting Coalition. Your fate, and that of the animals, are up to you. http://youtu.be/mvWuPbDSTYo

MEAT CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA - Australia, Spain, USA top 3

MEAT CONSUMPTION BY COUNTRY - USA + all countries

Line up single file all the cows killed in the USA per year, and the cow line will go from LA to New York 15 times.

Line up single file all the pigs killed in the USA per year, and the pig line will go from LA to New York 35 times.

Line up single file all the chickens killed in the USA per year (~10 billion), and the chicken line will go from the Earth to the Moon 8 times.

Somewhat belatedly, though never too late, I came across what entertainer Steven Patrick Morrissey said about the Chinese people being a "SUBSPECIES" (Sep 4, 2010). At issue was animal circuses. Perhaps I was too busy on the road conducting my 7th Compassion for Animals Road Expedition (CARE-7 tour - 40 states in 7 months, Apr-Nov, 2010). Now, upon reading it, the first thought that sprang to mind is: Does he think that he belongs to the Master Race? What does this make him? A "Subspeciesist"?

Good thing that facts speak for themselves. In January this year, China beat Morrissey's UK, and the US, and Canada, in banning animal circuses. Even so, inevitably, when I shared the positive news in a Facebook post, it quickly degenerated into yet another negative Chinese-bashing thread.

As a Chinese Canadian ARA, I've taken this type of abuse on a daily basis - from fellow ARAs of all people - for years - though admittedly none was meant to be offensive against my person. At first, I remained silent, thinking that racism would not be tolerated in the movement espousing Anti-Speciesism, which hopefully would be cleansed by those who could see comparable ugliness in their own cultural mirrors, e.g. bow hunting, factory farms, rodeo, vivisection..., and animal circuses, because I considered the subject beneath my dignity and irrelevant to my pro-animal activism. But one day, upon witnessing my own mother being insulted due to her ethnicity, I began writing about it (e.g. my latest blog on this subject: [CRIMES AGAINST ANIMALS Around The World] - http://​homosapienssaveyourearth.blogsp​ot.com/2011/11/​crimes-against-animals-around-w​orld.html).

Now, in late 2011, reading Morrissey's statement, and others' comments in his support, and seeing anti-Chinese groups spring up like wildfire within the AR movement, I have come to a point of resignation. Morrissey and his fans can own the racist sector of the AR movement for all I care. Thankfully, there are groups exemplified by Stand By Animals In China, Stop Crush and the Global Anti-Hunting Coalition that hold steadfastly against racism of any kind within the Animal Rights movement, thus maintaining it on an even keel in the winds of prejudice and bigotry.

Though I understand where his offensive statement had come from - his gut and not his head - I feel that Morrissey owes my mother a big apology, and my father, my sister, my brother, my uncles and aunts and cousins, my childhood friends, NONE OF WHOM eat cats and dogs, or use rhino horn, or skin animals alive, and the vast majority of the Chinese people who are as irked by these atrocities as he is. As for me, I don't need his apology. He can save his breath for a new song of true compassion, one embracing all sentient beings - including the Chinese people, at least the hundreds of millions of them that abhor cruelty as he does.

About Anthony Marr

Anthony Marr
* has a degree in physics
* is the author of "OMNI-SCIENCE and the Human Destiny" (2003) and "Homo Sapiens SAVE YOUR EARTH" (2008)
* 1995, he cleaned up N. American Chinatowns of endangered species medicines
* 1996, he led "the highest-profile anti-trophy-hunting campaign in Canada" (Globe and Mail).
* 1997-1999, he worked in 3 tiger reserves in India.
* 1999, he founded Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE).
* 2004/2005, he conducted operations in Japan against whaling and dolphin slaughter.
* 2003-2011, completed 7 Compassion for Animals Road Expeditions (CARE tours, each covering 30-45 states over 4-7 months), and spoke at the National AR Conference every year
* 2009, he founded the Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC)
* 2010, he won the Henry Spira Grassroots Activist Award.
www.HOPE-CARE.org
www.facebook.com/AnthonyMarr001
www.HomoSapiensSaveYourEarth.blogspot.com
www.AnthonyMarr13.wordpress.com
www.Dying-for Salvation.blogspot.com